Equivalence of Self- and Staff-Collected Nasal Swabs for the Detection of Viral Respiratory Pathogens
Open Access
- 14 November 2012
- journal article
- research article
- Published by Public Library of Science (PLoS) in PLOS ONE
- Vol. 7 (11), e48508
- https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0048508
Abstract
The need for the timely collection of diagnostic biosamples during symptomatic episodes represents a major obstacle to large-scale studies on acute respiratory infection (ARI) epidemiology. This may be circumvented by having the participants collect their own nasal swabs. We compared self- and staff-collected swabs in terms of swabbing quality and detection of viral respiratory pathogens. We conducted a prospective study among employees of our institution during the ARI season 2010/2011 (December-March). Weekly emails were sent to the participants (n = 84), reminding them to come to the study center in case of new symptoms. The participants self-collected an anterior nasal swab from one nostril, and trained study personnel collected one from the other nostril. The participants self-collected another two swabs (one from each nostril) on a subsequent day. Human β-actin DNA concentration was determined in the swabs as a quality control. Viral respiratory pathogens were detected by multiplex RT-PCR (Seeplex RV15 kit, Seegene, Eschborn, Germany). Of 84 participants, 56 (67%) reported at least one ARI episode, 18 participants two, and one participant three. Self-swabbing was highly accepted by the participants. The amount of β-actin DNA per swab was higher in the self- than in the staff-collected swabs (p = 0.008). β-actin concentration was lower in the self-swabs collected on day 1 than in those collected on a subsequent day (p<0.0001). A respiratory viral pathogen was detected in 31% (23/75) of staff- and in 35% (26/75) of self-collected swabs (p = 0.36). With both approaches, the most frequently identified pathogens were human rhinoviruses A/B/C (12/75 swabs, 16%) and human coronavirus OC43 (4/75 swabs, 5%). There was almost perfect agreement between self- and staff-collected swabs in terms of pathogen detection (agreement = 93%, kappa = 0.85, p<0.0001). Nasal self-swabbing for identification of viral ARI pathogens proved to be equivalent to staff-swabbing in this population in terms of acceptance and pathogen detection.Keywords
This publication has 10 references indexed in Scilit:
- Validation of Self-swab for Virologic Confirmation of Influenza Virus Infections in a Community SettingThe Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2011
- E-mail-based symptomatic surveillance combined with self-collection of nasal swabs: a new tool for acute respiratory infection epidemiologyInternational Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2011
- Self-Collected Mid-Turbinate Swabs for the Detection of Respiratory Viruses in Adults with Acute Respiratory IllnessesPLOS ONE, 2011
- Self-collected nasal swabs to detect infection and colonization: a useful tool for population-based epidemiological studies?International Journal of Infectious Diseases, 2011
- Evaluation and Clinical Validation of an Alcohol-Based Transport Medium for Preservation and Inactivation of Respiratory VirusesJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2011
- Development and Evaluation of a Flocked Nasal Midturbinate Swab for Self-Collection in Respiratory Virus Infection Diagnostic TestingJournal of Clinical Microbiology, 2010
- Collection by trained pediatricians or parents of mid-turbinate nasal flocked swabs for the detection of influenza viruses in childhoodVirology Journal, 2010
- Parent-collected respiratory specimens—A novel method for respiratory virus and vaccine efficacy researchVaccine, 2008
- Evidence for altered regulation of I kappa B alpha degradation in human colonic epithelial cells.The Journal of Immunology, 1997
- The Measurement of Observer Agreement for Categorical DataBiometrics, 1977